A bill allowing same-sex couples to form civil unions fails to “provide sufficient safeguards for the religious liberties of all Coloradans,” an opponent testified this week.

The testimony came from Kellie Fiedorek, litigation counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom at its Washington, D.C., office. The non-profit advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith.

Fiedorek was the first of 15 witnesses to testify against Senate Bill 11, which grants same-sex couples in civil unions most but not all of the benefits, protections and responsibilities of couples in traditional marriages. The Senate Judiciary Committee passed the bill on a party-line vote.

Here are her prepared remarks:

Colorado Senate Bill 13-011— the proposed legislation to extend specific legal recognition (Civil Unions) to same-sex couples in Colorado—contains provisions that affirm some religious freedoms for a small handful of Colorado’s citizens. And while we offer no analysis in this memo on the policy implications of creating Civil Unions for same-sex couples, we note herein that SB 13-011 fails to provide sufficient safeguards for the religious liberties of all Coloradans.

The absence of these safeguards, in addition to raising constitutional concerns, is inequitable because, where same-sex unions are legal, same-sex couples are able to obtain what they require to certify and celebrate their unions.

Our country has a longstanding tradition of respect for the viewpoints of all Americans. Thus, if SB 13-011 is to be adopted, it should be amended to protect all citizens.

Constitutional safeguards are especially important when making policy shifts, like granting formal legal recognition specifically to same-sex couples.

First, SB 13-011, while providing certain protections, adds no additional, substantive safeguards for religious freedom beyond what the U.S. Constitution already provides. No existing law requires that religious officials must preside over every legal union, let alone ceremonies that are inconsistent with their religious beliefs. Section 14-15-112(4) merely codifies the already established constitutional right of ministers, clergy, and religious institutions under the Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution to abide by their sincerely held religious beliefs.

Moreover, 14-15-112(4) is incomplete and proposes to directly undermine the religious freedom of other persons authorized to certify civil unions — such as a judge or magistrate. Yet the same First Amendment that protects clergy applies to all citizens. Thus, the disparate treatment exhibited by 14-15-112(4) strongly indicates that those expressly excluded — including judges or magistrate — can or should be forced to violate their conscience and religious beliefs where conflicts may arise. And while the proposed legislation expressly invokes “the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and section 4 of article II of the Constitution,” the substance of the legislation does not embody the protections provided by those constitutions.

Providing incomplete protections is unnecessary given that same-sex couples historically have not been denied the ability to certify their legal unions, wherever they may occur. This has certainly been the case in the states of California, Delaware, Hawai’i, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin, states that have already extended Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships to same-sex couples. Viewed in this context, the omissions identified in 14-15-112(4) pose a direct threat to the religious freedom of those individuals authorized to certify civil unions in Colorado, but who fall outside the scope of this bill’s religious protection.

Second, 14-15-112(4) is impermissibly narrow in that it proposes nothing to ensure that the government does not penalize, withhold benefits from, or refuse to contract with clergy, a religious institution, or a religious organization, not to mention individuals and businesses that possess sincere religious beliefs about sexual unions and/or the importance of both mothers and fathers to families. Because the First Amendment applies to all Americans, including corporations, and because the Colorado Constitution guarantees the “free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship” and states that “no person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege or capacity, on account of his opinions concerning religion,” these guarantees would be prudent additions to 14-15-112(4), if the legislation is to be enacted.

Lastly 14-15-112(4) is substantially limited by its own terms because it applies only regarding “certifying a civil union.”

But civil union ceremonies and celebrations oftentimes involve much more than mere certifications. Section 14-15-112(4) thus fails to protect and preserve the rights of all to recognize or participate in those relationships and events consistent with their religious tenets, including the usage of property or facilities.

An example of 14-15-112(4)’s limitation is that it would permit the state to penalize or refuse to contract with a faith-based child-welfare agency—like an adoption or foster agency—that, for religious reasons, strives to place children in homes with mothers and fathers. Regrettably, this type of unnecessary discrimination occurred in Illinois, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia soon after those jurisdictions extended legal recognition to the relationships of same-sex couples.

And since some adoption or child-welfare agencies in Colorado are already committed to serving same-sex couples, any legislation that does not safeguard the organizational values of all adoption or child-welfare agencies inexplicably fails to exhibit tolerance.

Furthermore, 14-15-112(4) fails to protect many others, including pastors or counselors that provide counseling to couples in accordance with their deeply held religious beliefs. Others left unprotected by SB 13-011 include wedding-venue owners, clerks and recorders, bed-and-breakfast establishments, bakeries, photographers, caterers, deejays, and perhaps others. If SB 13-011 is enacted without amendment, legal actions against these organizations and individuals will continue to occur, as they have already in Littleton, Colorado. And since same-sex couples continue to successfully celebrate their legal unions, as well as find individuals and businesses eager to assist them with the ceremonies and details of their celebrations, the omissions in 14-15-112(4) exist without reason. The legislature should account for the rights of all Coloradans.

In conclusion, SB 13-011 fails to protect the fundamental free exercise of religion of all Coloradans, safeguarded in both the United States and Colorado Constitutions.

The so-called religious protections put forth in the proposed legislation are not only inadequate, but the extreme narrowness of those protections suggests intent to legislate prejudice toward individuals who possess deeply held religious beliefs about sexual unions or marriage.

As the 6th Circuit recently stated in its opinion declaring that a university cannot compel a student to alter or violate her belief system, “Tolerance is a two-way street.”

And the Colorado Supreme Court made clear the extent to which the Constitution protects religious freedom: “The Constitution does not require complete separation of church and state: It “affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any. Anything less would require the ‘callous indifference’ we have said was never intended by the Establishment Clause.’”

To ensure all Colorado citizens are treated properly under the law, SB 13-011, if enacted, should rectify its disparate treatment of certain individuals and afford protections that will safeguard the constitutionally-protected religious freedoms of all Coloradans.

When you chose to participate in commerce you agree, implicitly and constitutionally, to serve all. What if my religion taught that Muslims and Jews and Hindus, because they don’t follow Jesus, were wrong and sinful? I should be able to ban them from my business?
Your business depends on public streets, transportation, sidewalks, police and fire protection, all furnished to the general public and by the public.

You are entitled to believe what you want, and worship where you will, but if your doors are open for commerce, you’ll serve all. And, who knows, you might even come to love some of those you would exclude!

http://www.facebook.com/ken.lucas.54 Ken Lucas

River291: You nailed the purpose of “Open to the public”. Did you hear that Ron & Rand Paul?

Joe

That is not at all the same thing. No one is proposing that homosexuals be not
served a good or service. What they are proposing is that people not be forced to perform a homosexual act – namely to perform a homosexual marriage ceremony.
An eatery that serves food serves the food the same no matter what a person looks like or their sexual preferences. To force someone to perform a homosexual marriage ceremony is to force them to participate in homosexuality. It forces them to fundamentally change the service they are performing.

Furthermore, it has been shown scientifically that our sexuality is extremely plastic or malleable. Anyone can become homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual depending on what you are exposed to or expose yourself to. See the book “A Brain that Changes Itself” for more info on neuroplasticity and sexuality. Unlike race, it is not genetic. It is behavioral and environmental. I personally know homosexuals who have retrained their brains to be attracted to women. And it is not easy and I
understand the struggle. Some may have been dealt an abusive childhood. Others may have tremendous shame or pain. I understand. It may be so difficult that some believe it isn’t possible for them to change. But it is possible. Dopamine is quite a powerful brain change agent for better or worse.

Early on the homosexual movement discovered that if they could equate homosexuality with the civil rights movement they could win people to their side. There is a book detailing this strategy. But race cannot be changed by a person. Sexuality is behavioral and can be changed. Race and sexuality are not the same thing.

And no one is proposing we kick people who struggle with homosexuality out of our society or segregate them. Homosexuals are welcome. What we are talking about here is if we are going to force half our population to say that the behavior is okay and force them to recognize the behavior AND force them to participate in the behavior in some fashion such as forced wedding ceremonies.

Furthermore, if we do say that sexuality is predetermined by genetics and there is nothing a person can do about it, then all forms of sexuality are also genetically predetermined and therefore okay (polygamy, polyamory, voyeuristic pedophilia, bestiality, heterosexuality, bisexuality, adultery, etc.). Are you really going to force all of this on everyone? Of course, it isn’t genetic and genetics don’t determine right and wrong.

In summary, our sexuality is extremely plastic and capable of change unlike race. This doesn’t mean it is easy to change and it doesn’t mean we have any reason to be unkind to someone. But there is such a thing as right and wrong. We should not be forced to endorse others sexuality as is currently being attempted.

The most palatable solution to the problem is that government have no say in the matter of marriage whatsoever.

Thomas Alex

You’re ignorant. Sexual Orientation is an immutable characteristic. Race and Sexual Orientation are completely the same-thing, one can’t change your Sexual Orientation. There’s absolutely no proof or evidence that Sexual Orientation can be changed or has ever been altered. The bigots always want to be the ones who’re “born” straight, but Gays choose. You can’t have it both ways.

Thankfully people like you do not get to decide who is and isn’t protected by the US Constitution. I am confident the US Supreme Court will legalize same-sex marriage nationwide, in June. After all the younger generation supports same-sex marriage by 75% and majority of Americans support it by 54%.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

No, sexual desire is not immutable at all. It is a product of all kinds of underlying factors like personal history, formative years, trauma, perversity, education, culture, etc. You change these factors and sexual orientation changes.

http://www.facebook.com/alpentrudel.alpi Alpentrudel Alpi

Humans are ANIMALS. Sexual orientation is a biological driven drive. Homosexuality is a biological error, this has nothing to do with education or culture.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

You’re mistaken. Desire is a product of a person’s psychological history related to relationships, sex, etc. Your thoughts, your experiences, your culture impacts the kinds of desire you have and how you act them out. There is nothing biologically determined in homosexuality. Therefore, like other sexual psychology problems, it can eventually be resolved.

Parque_Hundido

Please cite peer reviewed evidence. Otherwise, you sound like just another ignorant bigot who makes things up to support her wacky “arguments”.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

You’re the ignorant bigot. Science is not about peer review, it’s about who’s right. It doesn’t matter how many people review “2+2=4,” it matters that it’s right. And if you want to challenge what I write and you think the only people who have any knowledge are “peer reviewers,” go ahead and make your case using peer reviewed evidence. Otherwise you sound just like another left wing nitwit who only has blind faith in authority.

Thomas Alex

“left wing nitwit who only has blind faith in authority.”

Silly. If I am not mistaken, it’s the right wing Republicans who place faith in the existence of a “God,” even though there’s absolutely zero evidence to prove any exist.

There’s plenty of proof and evidence done over 30 years of study, proving that Sexual Orientation in an immutable characteristic, one in which you’re hardwired at birth with. Homosexuality, like Heterosexuality, Bisexuality, and Asexuality, are Scientifically and Biologically immutable.

Parque_Hundido

Well. Then we’ve established that you don’t know what peer reviewed science is. And you expect to be taken as something other than a garden variety right wing nutjob? Not on this planet.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

I do know that science does not depend on peer review. Science depends on being right. That’s something you just can’t grasp.

Then why has Homosexuality not been resolved in over 3 million years of human existence? Because it can’t, it’s 100% normal and healthy human Sexual Orientation.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

You know nothing about cultures in the distant past. There is no evidence that many cultures had any homosexuality problem, just as there is no evidence that all of them had pedophiles, necrophiles, etc. There is nothing healthy about having so many psychological problems that you can’t relate in a good way to the opposite sex.

Thomas Alex

I know plenty. Homosexuality has been documented in all civilizations dating back 3 million years. The Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Chinese, and American Indians all performed same-sex marriages. Homosexuality is not a problem, it’s an immutable Sexual Orientation. You seem to have a problem not relating to the same-sex in a good way. Same-sex relationships are completely healthy, but because you’re not into them. Does not make them wrong or bad. Don’t like it, don’t date someone of the same-sex.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

There is little or no record of most of the cultures that existed before 2000 yrs ago. You know nothing about them. And all the civilizations you mention are highly violent, dysfunctional and warped. No wonder they have prostitution, homosexuality and pedophilia. Greeks were mostly ephebophiles – they sexually abused or exploited male teens.

Parque_Hundido

I think it’s clear that Alessandra is the one who knows nothing about culture, history or science. Yet another loud mouthed, know-nothing right wing nut job.

Parque_Hundido

This is something that a person completely unfamiliar with history, archaeology or anthropology would say. Congrats.

Thomas Alex

You obviously never studied archaeology! The oldest human skeletons found date back 3.4 million years ago. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. But I bet you don’t believe that either. Because you disregard facts and only care about your “beliefs.”

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

Wrong. There is nothing more than a skeleton. You know nothing about what these people thought or what attitudes they had or how they behaved regarding sex. Nothing. You’re just blabbering nonsense.

Thomas Alex

I never said I did, did I? I said the oldest human skeletons is 3.4 million years, that’s all I said. You need to look in the mirror at your nonsense.

Parque_Hundido

I know plenty. I earned a Ph.D. in anthropology and we know plenty about how people viewed sex and relationships as far back as 6K years ago.

Thomas Alex

Homosexuality is not an error, as it has been documented in over 1400+ species, which clearly means it’s 100% natural.

Thomas Alex

Homosexuality is not a desire, it’s a Sexual Orientation. And Sexual Orientation is indeed an immutable characteristic. Most people are aware of their Sexual Orientation before the age of ten, this including Homosexuals. To date there’s no Factual documentation that any one has altered ones Sexual Orientation.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

Sexuality is not equal to sexual orientation. and you can’t even define the term “sexual orientation.”

Since you don’t even know what a sexual orientation is, maybe you shouldn’t talk about it so much.

peterpi

If you are a civil clerk, you serve all people, period, who meet the requirements for whatever license they are applying for.
No one is forcing a single minister to perform a marriage ceremony for gay or lesbian couples. No one.
What part of “civil union” do you not understand?
Religious ministers can still refuse to marry gay and lesbian couples. The First Amendment still applies.
But if you are an employee of a government, you’d better serve everyone who comes in the door. And, if civil unions become law, and a gay or lesbian couples meets the requirements nad has the proper fee, give them their license — or find another line of work.
I’m tired of religious types who expect the entire universe to revolve around them.

Kibble

Joe, just come out of the closet already. Sexual orientation isn’t a struggle for someone, unless they are in denial of who they are. You are clearly struggling with something.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

Everyone is born heterosexual – you certainly struggle with this simple fact

Thomas Alex

Wrong. If everyone is born Heterosexual, then nobody is born heterosexual. You can’t have it both ways. Either all Sexual Orientations are immutable or none are. It’s a fact that not everyone is born Heterosexual, it’s a simple fact you seem to struggle with.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

Wrong – it’s not having it both ways, just one way: everybody is born heterosexual. The human mind is mutable. You are born heterosexual and with a structure to develop into an adult sexuality to have sex with adults. However, if your mind degenerates along the way, you will develop a pedophilia problem. It doesn’t mean you were born that way. That same with homosexuality. People develop a homosexuality problem and they can certainly try to resolve it and be normal heterosexuals.

Thomas Alex

Wrong. Ask any Homosexual if they were born Straight, if they say no. Then there’s your answer, whether you like the answer or not. Just because you’re to close minded to accept that others were born different than you, does not mean they weren’t.

Homosexuality is not a problem, homophobic bigots like you’re.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

Asking a person with a homosexual problem if they were born that way is like asking a pedophile if they were born that way. They might say yes because they don’t want to take responsibility for their problems. Or they are just plain ignorant.

Thomas Alex

Asking a person with a heterosexual problem if they were born that way is like asking a pedophile if they were born that way. Goes both ways.

Mookey

The only ‘struggle’ with sexual orientation comes from and is imposed by people who are ignorant and think that being gay is a choice. Regardless, the FACT is that those of us who are gay are not currently treated equally under the constitution. The right to marry we seek is no different than the struggle for interracial marriage.

Felix Herzog

Howdy there Joe… I figure someone would try your approach and I do respect it… However I just can’t agree… and I believe neither can the majority of the american public. If you are born straight its usually taken for granted… no awkward coming out moments, no fighting or closeting to keep you job or stay in your apartment… I really can’t imagine a lot of folks trying to learn to swing the other way… For those of us born gay… some of us are in denial… Yes, we can fight our biology… we can have girlfriends and court them, we can marry them and biologically have kids… we can also in secret during this entire process suffer from depression, sexual repression, go on Craigs list and try to find ways to release our biological needs while our significant other is shopping or traveling. In short … many of us can try to fit in. A few rare folks are in fact bi-sexual and may not have an actual preference for the gender of their partner…while some of us may be close to that line. However I find it difficult to believe that one can swing from one side to the other. Perhaps those closer to the center may make accommodations for themselves to simplify their life, and avoid dealing with half this country criticizing them. Life isn’t easy for anyone however adding something like being gay to an already complicated life isn’t easy. So I won’t question the decisions of the people you know that “retrained” themselves… however, I would encourage them to do what feels natural repression of who and what we are usually leads to depression.
As for the infringement of the rights of religious individuals I believe its overblown and have to agree with peterpi. If you serve the public you serve the whole public. However on the tropic of infringement of rights I would ask religious organizations to consider how many rights have been denied to those of us that can’t get married, or have civil unions. To those of us that pay extra taxes b/c we live together but can’t file jointly. To those that want to jointly adopt and improve the lives of children in the foster care system but are denied the ability to help that child b/c we share our lives with a same sex partner. I think there is a valid argument for the fact that someones rights are being denied … however in this particular case its very obvious whose rights are being denied. Try living a year in our shoes… and maybe one day you will understand.

PTBoat

No religious organization has ever been forced to perform ceremonies outside of their belief in this country. Catholics are free to only marry Catholics, etc. What is not allowed is refusing to serve people in a civil context. refusing to make a wedding cake is a completely different ballgame from being in the religious right. The cake is a service and an object; the ceremony is the religious part. Clerical work for a civil service, such as licenses, etc., is completely different from the religious aspect of marriage or union. Believe it or not, the state gives religious organizations the right to perform marriages, for some people, but the civil part of that contract is the license and is completely separate from the religious right.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

Companies discriminate what clients they choose all the time – and who they employ – no one is serving all.

Parque_Hundido

This is so bizarre as to be unbelievable. They want to exempt public officials – including judges and magistrates – from carrying out the unions described in the law. Isn’t that like exempting judges from carrying out inter-racial marriages if they have a “deep conviction” about the morality of such unions? And they want to exempt the wedding industry from the normal rules that apply to public accommodations?

These people are insane. Colorado needs full equality now.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

You do have convictions about polygamy? incest? Well, just because you love to normalize homosexuality, not everyone needs to be this ignorant and irresponsible.

I fully support polygamy. Incest is a different thing, although it’s legal to marry first cousins in 30 states.

Parque_Hundido

Sweetie, you’re obviously posting from crazy town. All I’m saying is that you should make your move permanent.

colorado 1234

Really, wow. First you relinquish the right of your church to marry by backing a constitutional amendment that the government, not your church is the ultimate authority over marrage with your so call defense of marriage bill and then you get upset when the judges preside over such unions. Think religious “right” before you act because you might get what you want, a DISSOLVE OF WHAT YOU CALL MARRIAGE.

Peter Aretin

Eventually, the gubmit should get completely out of the marriage business. It should neither define, sanction, or subsidize any marriage, and leave marriage completely up to churches to define. The sole role of the gubmit should be to prohibit discrimination against any creed’s definition of marriage in the public sphere. Marriage is really a religious idea, whatever social benefits may be claimed for it. The boosters for traditional marriage want to have it both ways; they want gubmit to protect what they claim is their religious freedom by discriminating against all others’.

ElectricGuy

We need a secular means of binding people together. Marriages could be the religious means, civil unions could be the secular means. There should be no legal difference, only a religious one. In effect, everyone would be bound by a civil union, with marriage an added layer of joy for those who care. Churches could marry gays or not, as they choose, but they could not prevent civil unions.

That should end religious claims on the binding process. Religious folks can retain their ‘sanctity of marriage’ and ‘sacrament of marriage’ arguments, which would have no legal meaning, only religious.

Peter Aretin

I’m not sure why “we” need to be “bound together” by anything other than common purpose. There are any number of churches, many of which do not require supernatural beliefs, for those who want to formalize their relationships. I think “we” need to stop subsidizing procreation, as well.

ElectricGuy

Don’t get caught up in the word. I mean the process by which civil privileges and obligations are granted. Next of kin, survivor, etc. The things gained by a civil union should be exactly those gained by marriage, except the cloak of religious approval.

Parque_Hundido

Religious groups have no special claim to marriage. Separate but equal is never equal.

ElectricGuy

Until we allow gay marriage, this will have to do.

doghealedmydyslexia

Religions have no proprietorship over the term or institution of marriage. Marriage is already a ‘civil union.’ Separate but equal…isn’t equal.

Thomas Alex

The First Amendment of the US Constitution protects Freedom from Religion before it guarantees Freedom of Religion. All businesses must follow anti-discrimination laws, no one is exempt. If you don’t like same-sex unions and you’re a businesses owner, then you have two choices and only two choices. You either close your doors or you treat all people equally. End of Story.

peterpi

Thank you, sir!

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

You need to read the 1st Amendment before writing on here!

Thomas Alex

I have read it, it clearly states Freedom from Religion before Freedom of Religion. You really need to go back to school before writing on here.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” (Freedom from Religion)

“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (Freedom of Religion)

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

In other words, you don’t know what the word “or” stands for!

Thomas Alex

I absolutely do…I wrote it out in black and white for you. Seem’s you don’t understand. Freedom from Religion “or” Freedom of Religion. If Religion truly is a protected Freedom, then it can’t exist with out Freedom from Religion. You can not say one has the right to practice any religion it chooses, but then in the same sentence say one doesn’t have the right “not” to practice any religion. Freedom of religion goes both ways, of course the religious right refuses to acknowledge this. If you’re free to practice your religion, then I am also free not to have it forced onto me-Freedom from Religion.

doghealedmydyslexia

Alessandra fails to grasp one simple, inescapable fact–that religious beliefs do not supersede the rights of others. She appears to be under the misguided delusion that freedom of religion means “I can do whatever I want and discriminate against whomever I want because of my beliefs and if you don’t let me you’re trampling on MY Religious Freedom! wahhhh!” Does that about sum it up?

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

You are just plain ignorant about the law:

OVERVIEW OF THE LAW Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964 (“Title VII”) prohibits employers, except religious organizations 3 4 5, from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. Title VII also requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee or prospective employee, unless to do so would create an undue hardship upon the employer. This means that:
 Employers may not treat employees more or less favorably because of their religion.
 Employees cannot be required to participate “or to refrain from participating “in a religious activity as a condition of employment.
 Employers must reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer.
 Employers must take steps to prevent religious harassment of their employees.
 Employers may not retaliate against employees for asserting rights under Title VII.

Thomas Alex

Seems you’re plain ignorant about the Law.

“unless to do so would create an undue hardship upon the employer.”

You seem to have missed that line. A Justice of Peace not doing their job they were hired to do so, is an “undue hardship upon the employer.”

mg

The sooner the Fiedoreks of the country are crushed into some, preferably, very dark corner where they can hate on the gays while thumping their bibles where nobody has to see or hear them, the better for the country. There are millions of unemployed people out there, a bunch of wars, our government is a disaster area, and here we are wasting precious time and resources on an issue pretty much everyone knows is going to have only one outcome.

If Jesus were alive today, I wonder what his focus would be. Somehow, I don’t think it would be hating on the gays.

peterpi

The US and Colorado constitutions do not guarantee that a religious person’s feelings won’t ever be hurt.
The US and Colorado constitutions do not guarantee that life in the USA and Colorado will conform to a religious person’s exact creed.

Life is unfair. Get over it.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

I think if a person has a homosexual problem, they need to get over it.

Parque_Hundido

So far, the only one with a “homosexual problem” is you.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

Oh, more of your display of ignorance in psychology!

Thomas Alex

Homosexuality is not a problem, it’s an immutable Human Sexual Orientation. Seems you’re the one with a problem with Homosexuals, making you totally homophobic.

ElectricGuy

If the argument carries the day, then anyone objecting to services for gays, joined in civil unions or not, can clam a religious right to deny services. The law appears to appropriately limit religious objections to religious events and exclude secular events. Freedom in the practice of religion, not freedom from acceptance in everyday events.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

Since you can deny employment in practice to anyone who has ideas you don’t like, like conservatives or religious folks, I don’t see what you are complaining about.

ElectricGuy

When we start talking about denying employment, make your case. Until then, we’re discussing denial of services to gays.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

You need to be a mountain of hypocrisy to want to deny people freedom of religion and conscience and then complain about them not wanting to support your noxious homosexuality agenda

Thomas Alex

Don’t forget Freedom from Religion. There’s no such thing as a Homosexual agenda, it’s called giving Equal Rights to all American’s under the law.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

Your homosexual agenda can be briefly described as the political movement to normalize homosexuality and shove it down everyone’s throats by decree. If people have equal rights, they have just as much right not to normalize homosexuality – or you don’t understand the word “equal” as well?

Thomas Alex

Did you also refer to the Civil Rights movement of the 60’s as an “agenda.” Were Blacks trying to normalize their “race” and shove it down everyone’s throats by decree. Considering at the time Blacks were considered cattle and deserved no Constitutional Protections. Would it not be reasonable to assume you also were against the normalization of Blacks.

Equal Rights means all American’s Gay or Straight are guaranteed US Constitutional Protections, including the right to marry the one you love. A right in which the US Supreme Court has ruled nearly a dozen times as to be the most “basic fundamental right of free men.”

If you weren’t so ignorant, you would accept the Scientific and Biological Facts that states Homosexuality to be an immutable characteristic, like that of Heterosexuality, Bisexuality, and Asexuality. You would then realize there’s no agenda, just a minority seeking their Constitutional Rights and Privileges in which they’re entitled under the law.

Thankfully homophobic bigots like yourself are on the wrong and dying side of history. 75% of adults 18-30 support same-sex marriage and 54% of American’s nationwide support full marriage rights for same-sex couples.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

Were Blacks trying to normalize their “race” and shove it down
everyone’s throats by decree. Considering at the time Blacks were
considered cattle and deserved no Constitutional Protections. Would it
not be reasonable to assume you also were against the normalization of
Blacks.

===========
Certainly it would not. Because skin pigment can never be equated to having a psycho-sexual problem. Being black cannot be equated to being a homosexual, a pedophile, a person who believes in S&M, in prostitution – these are all dysfunctional sexuality problems.

Trying to normalize pedophilia or S&M is much more in line with trying to normalize homosexuality. The only “right” these people have is to take responsibility for their sexually warped minds and deal with their psychological problems.

The majority of 18-30 yr olds spread the largest proportion of STDs in society, causing serious damage and billions of wasted money, they are incapable of raising a family and having a long-term marriage. Not to mention the date rapes, the interpersonal violence, and the binge drinking, etc. All they want is to do harm with impunity and never take responsibility for their psychological and sexual problems.

And more people with your views die of AIDS than with mine – you can be sure of that – because it’s people with your views that are such pigs regarding sexuality and that spread deadly diseases in society with impunity to get their little sexual kicks.

Parque_Hundido

I think it’s clear that Alessandra has a “homosexuality problem”. Lets hope she gets the help she needs.

Thomas Alex

Well since Homosexuality is not considered a “psycho-sexual problem,” but an immutable characteristic, it certainly can. Your Junk Science is just that Junk.

“And more people with your views die of AIDS than with mine” Really, so it would surprise you to know that 40% of Heterosexuals have and spread HIV? Would it also surprise you that 43% of Heterosexuals engage in anal sex?

===================
Really? Because you have not shown any proof that I’m wrong. Oh that’s right, you don’t have any, Imagine that.

So 60% of homosexuals and bisexuals spread HIV? Assuming that’s true, when they are only 15-20% of the population? Why are they so grotesque? why do they have such deformed behaviors about spreading deadly sexual diseases? why the absolute impunity for a criminal activity?

Thomas Alex

I’m sorry, but I have never seen a grotesque Homosexual male. If you ask any heterosexual women, homosexual men are regulation hotties. Criminal activity?

Why is it that same-sex couples make on average $20k a year more than opposite-sex couples? Because they’re hard working and aim to succeed in everything they do.

if Ms. Fiedorek’s legal analysis seems like a nonsensical reasonless word salad of intolerance – here’s why = she’s a graduate of Ave Maria Law School, founded by right wing zealots in 1999 and consistently ranked amongst the worst law schools in the country. She’s cute so you’ll be seeing her spout this nonsense as a “FoxNews legal expert” sometime very soon – if she’s isn’t on there already. If only she had graduated 10 years earlier – she would’ve been running Bush’s Department of Justiice at some point.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

You’re just as intolerant of her and her beliefs, it’s obvious to see.

Thomas Alex

And you are just intolerant of Scientific Fact.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

On the contrary, you are.

Thomas Alex

I am? You’re the one denying Scientific Fact that states Homosexuality to be an immutable characteristic, just like Heterosexuality.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

There are plenty of researchers, therapists, and people who have shown that it is not immutable. People are born heterosexual, but their minds can degenerate any which way afterwards. No one is born with a homosexuality problem or with a bestiality problem either. But the mind can always become dysfunctional after a person is born. As it can become dysfunctional, it can be treated and it can change.
This is Scientific Fact.

Parque_Hundido

Then why can’t you cite even one whose work has been peer reviewed? Oh, right, because there aren’t any. You’re a liar.

Nicolosi is a discredited right wing kook. And he can’t publish in peer reviewed journals because his research isn’t good enough.

Thomas Alex

So where are all these “researchers, therapists, and people who have shown that it is not immutable.” And why weren’t any of them witnesses in the case Perry vs Schwarzenegger? Because they knew they research would not hold up in Court, that’s why. There’s absolutely no evidence that Sexual Orientation can be changed, and that is a Scientific Fact.

burty

Alessandra – asserting that you don’t like name-calling and then calling posters “a nitwit” “left wing bigot” “ignorant bigot” or “liars” really undercuts whatever already laughable and easily disproved points you’re making about this, and indicates where you’re illogical reasoning comes from. I hope someday that you realize that you’re on the wrong side of history on this, and you’re able to let go of the hate that rules you’re heart and brain.

Purplepatriot

Well, at least Ms. Fiedorek is cute. I don’t understand why anyone would go through so much trouble just to deny some people the simple right to have their commitment to each other sanctioned legally, or why they would imagine themselves harmed by it. It’s another case of someone, in the name of religious freedom, attempting to impose their religious preferences on the rest of us.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

People with a homosexuality problem need to investigate why they
developed the problem, why they are incapable of establishing a
wholesome and healthy relationship with the opposite sex and try to
resolve it. Every person is born heterosexual, the human species is
heterosexual. Americans, however, hate to face how dysfunctional they
are in any aspect related to sexuality and relationships. People need to
take responsibility for their psycho-sexual problems.

Parque_Hundido

^^ off her meds^^

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

parque- and you certainly need more of yours!

Thomas Alex

People with a heterosexuality problem need to investigate why they
developed the problem, why they are incapable of establishing a
wholesome and healthy relationship with the same sex and try to
resolve it. Goes both ways.

Every person is not born heterosexual, that’s a complete lie. That’s like saying every person is born believing in God, which is also a complete lie. Every single Homosexual child was born Homosexual, just like every single heterosexual child was born heterosexual. Just because you refuse to accept this fact is not our problem. But remember, in the end it’s just your ignorant and unsupported belief.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

There is no such thing as a homosexual child. Every child is born heterosexual – it’s the human species. any child can develop psycho-sexual problems after they are born – but they weren’t born psychologically defective.

Just because you don’t want to face that human beings have deep psychological problems related to sexuality won’t change reality.

Thomas Alex

So you can prove that all children are born Heterosexual? I’ll be waiting…………..

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

The human species is heterosexual -that’s how everyone is born – save intersex. Every child is born to grow up and have a heterosexual life, that includes both body and psychology. Obviously it can degenerate any which way after people are born.

Heterosexual people are not sterile when they engage in sex – have you noticed that? Because that’s what humans are supposed to be.

Parque_Hundido

Actually, I think Alesandra is a perfect example of why homophobia is a form of psychopathology. Her cognitive faculties appear to be negatively impacted by her obsessive thoughts about why she dislikes, fears and opposes LGBT people. If nothing else, Alessandra makes a good case study of how homophobia can be disabling.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

I just don’t like people who call other people names like you do, whenever we show that you are plainly ignorant. You make a good case why being so ignorant about science and psychological dysfunctions is such a bad thing. You make a good case why people who normalize homosexuality are incapable of thinking or reading.

Thomas Alex

Calling you homophobic is not a name calling game, it’s like calling you ignorant.

“Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, and may be based on irrational fear.”

There’s no such thing as a homosexual agenda. Why’s it when a minority seeks their “Equal Rights and Due Process” under the Law, the bigots call it an “agenda.” Gay and Lesbian American’s and their children deserve the same Equal Rights as Straight American’s.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

You’re exactly part of the homosexuality agenda! Recognize it. You’re an ignorant political movement to normalize sexual dysfunction, instead of trying to resolve the mental problems people have in society. And you do nothing but lie about the harm and violence that LGBT people do -that sums up your agenda quite well.

Thomas Alex

Gay and Lesbian American’s and their children deserve the same Equal Rights as Straight American’s. It’s bigots like you who make it harder for them to do so.

newhandle

By this reasoning, whites who belive in segregation should be able to discrimiate against non-whites. Sound absurd? Perhaps, but I grew up in the old south and we were raised on the Biblical justificaiton for slavery and the seperation of the races. Or perhaps you have a public official who issues marriage licenses who is Jewish and doesn’t approve of Jews marrying non-Jews. Should this official be able to not issue such a license? Or perhaps it is OK for a white racist who believes that the Bible supports that belief and that Jew are sub-human. Should that person deny the right of Jews to own pets? (In Nazi Germany, Jews were eventually prohibited from owning pets since only humans could own pets.)

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

No, by this reasoning, if you want to legalize marriage to three people, or between incestuous adults, others can refuse to give the licence.

Thomas Alex

Nope. Justices of Peace are required by Law and their Job duty to issue licenses on an Equal basis. Their religious beliefs are theirs and theirs alone, they can’t use them to justify an “exemption” in their job duties. If they refuse to issue them, they will be fired for not doing their job. Don’t like it? Don’t apply for the position.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

You need to learn what freedom of conscience and religion is.

OVERVIEW OF THE LAW Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964 (“Title VII”) prohibits employers, except religious organizations 3 4 5, from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. Title VII also requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee or prospective employee, unless to do so would create an undue hardship upon the employer. This means that:
 Employers may not treat employees more or less favorably because of their religion.
 Employees cannot be required to participate “or to refrain from participating “in a religious activity as a condition of employment.
 Employers must reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer.
 Employers must take steps to prevent religious harassment of their employees.
 Employers may not retaliate against employees for asserting rights under Title VII.

Thomas Alex

“unless to do so would create an undue hardship upon the employer. ”

You seem to have missed that line. A Justice of Peace not doing their job they were hired to do so, is an “undue hardship upon the employer.”

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

you need to read this line:

prohibits employers, except religious organizations 3 4 5, from
discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring,
firing, and other terms and conditions of employment.

Thomas Alex

You seem to be confused, it only prevents employers from not hiring someone for their particular religious beliefs. It does not allow employees to refuse to help a customer because of them. That violates the rights of the employer.

doghealedmydyslexia

What? You mean the Constitution don’t guar-ohn-tee MY religious RIGHT to discriminate agin’ those people I don’t like or approve of? Oh mercy sakes, what is this world a-comin’ to? That’s trampling on my Discrimination Rights right there!

Awww, yer just sad cuz the 1st Amendment don’t say what you think it does. Must be hard when you don’t get to impose yer beliefs on others, huh.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

Actually you’re the one who’s clueless about the 1st Amendment. And you’re the one trying to impose your beliefs on others, in case you haven’t noticed!

doghealedmydyslexia

The only thing I have imposed upon you is a bit of well-deserved mockery for your groundless assertions and poor rhetorical skills. Thank you for making it so easy. :)

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

And thank you for proving once against that you have no grounds for any of your assertions about the 1st Amendment. Just opening that big, third-grader mouth of yours doesn’t make you right, you know? Maybe before talking about rhetorical skills, you should acquire some.

Parque_Hundido

You got owned Alessandra.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

Have you done a search on the Internet to see how much you’re lying about Nicolosi not publishing in peer reviewed journals? Tell us when you have.

Thomas Alex

None of Nicolosi’s works or findings are considered credible. His whole organization NARTH is a hates group and their theraphy does not work. To date there’s absolutely no evidence or proof he has changed anyone’s Sexual Orientation from Gay to Straight.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

Your blind faith in any authority is what is not credible. Nicolosi’s work is really interesting and everyone should read it – there’s no good in being ignorant about sexual psychology.

Thomas Alex

Blind faith? I’m sorry, but I am an Atheist, I have no faith. Faith is for the weak and blind.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

You don’t know anything about science – you just repeat like a parrot anything the APA says. You have blind faith in them, that’s all. You don’t read science, and you can’t evaluate it. That’s faith in authority.

Thomas Alex

Really, well your so called science is junk science. I at least read for myself, you’re just warped on what the FRC claims.

doghealedmydyslexia

Which assertions would those be? Goodness, Alessandra, are you trying to set a record for number of
logical fallacies in one thread? You go, girl!
There’s really no need to get all
worked up just cuz folks point out the flaws in your arguments.

P.S. Here’s a hint: if you want to discourse with the grownups, temper tantrums don’t do you any favors. :-)

The 1st Amendment was written long before you were born. It comes first and any violation of it comes first.

Thomas Alex

You’re right, the “Separation of Church and State,” does come first.

Dale Farmer

This is the same intolerance disguised in legalese that was used to legalize discrimination against Black people prior to the Civil Rights Act. Get real. Time to call it what it is. Time to end the biggotry and hatred against Gay People. Time to take a stand America and realize the antiquated notions of the past are as stale as those that used to prevent women from voting, owning land, or driving a car — wait, those are still against the law for women, IN SAUDI ARABIA. Clearly, we are a more enlightened nation. Clearly, we are people that realize that ancient edicts perhaps misinterpreted for a 1000 years, must go the way of the dinosaur.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

People with a homosexuality problem need to investigate why they developed the problem, why they are incapable of establishing a wholesome and healthy relationship with the opposite sex and try to resolve it. Every person is born heterosexual, the human species is heterosexual. Americans, however, hate to face how dysfunctional they are in any aspect related to sexuality and relationships. People need to take responsibility for their psycho-sexual problems.

http://www.facebook.com/alpentrudel.alpi Alpentrudel Alpi

Homosexuality is not a psychological problem. It is a hormonal/genetic failure. Brain btw is masculisized while in the whombe and few weeks after the birth.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

There is nothing genetically determined about homosexuality. It’s the person’s sexual and relationship psychology that gets deformed and disoriented after they are born, mostly in ways they aren’t even aware of.

Peter Aretin

You can not confidently state there is no genetic component in homosexuality. Where do you get that idea?

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

Every study that has tried to claim genetic or biological determination has been shown to be wrong, with false results. Yet, every psychologist that has investigated the issue has found multiple underlying psycho- social factors that make a person develop a homosexual problem, being so psychologically deformed that they can’t establish a healthy relationship with the opposite sex

Thomas Alex

Where are the studies you speak of? Having a relationship with the same-sex is also healthy. You seem to think just because you were born straight, you can force those who were born Gay to become straight. You can’t.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

Try reading Nicolosi and anthropology. Everyone is born straight, not just me.

Thomas Alex

Nicolosi is a not a credible Scientist and his findings are considered junk science. How about you study Biology and credible Scientist who the Medical community consider to be Factual. Ask any Gay person if they were born Straight, and you will have your answer. Because of where it stands now, you can’t prove either way.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

The day you study biology you will learn that if you cross a sheep with a man, or another man, or a child – it doesn’t work. These are all ways to be deformed about sex and reproduction. A child is the result of one man and one woman – the most beautiful thing in the world: heterosexuality.

Thomas Alex

Shows how ignorant you are. According to the 2010 US Census, 71% of children raised by same-sex couples are biological to both parents.

Peter Aretin

Malarkey.

Peter Aretin

Homosexuality is not a failure in any sense. It is found throughout the animal kingdom, for perfectly sound evolutionary reasons I’m sure Richard Dawkins could explain to you.

Parque_Hundido

The only ones with the “homosexuality problem” are you and the other religious right wing bigots. Go to some camp to get in touch with your oppressive behaviors. And stop projecting your problem onto others.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

You are just a left wing bigot, who’s completely ignorant about psycho-sexual dysfunctions and how the mind works.

Thomas Alex

Homosexuality is not a dysfunction, it’s 100% normal and healthy.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

Homosexuality is totally dysfunctional, it’s not normal – it’s disoriented, it’s against nature, it can be quite perverse and perverted, violent and harmful.

No, I meant just another left wing bigot who’s completely ignorant about psychology, anthropology, and biology.

Parque_Hundido

You’ve just described Alessandra, though you left out the part about how she makes up evidence. Lying is a big part of your pathology.

gwats1957

Someone should tell Ms. Fiedoreck that the State of Colorado is not a Church, and if it is, it is not her Church exclusively. Civil Unions or not, They will not interfere with her right to worship as she pleases, but it will dienfranchise large numbers of voters, and that must not happen.

Thomas Alex

Is homosexuality a mental disorder?

No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

“Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology.”

Researchers like Nicolosi, who have investigated the problem in hundreds of men have found a mountain of underlying psycho-sexual problems that cause someone to develop a homosexuality problem.

People with a homosexuality agenda just don’t want to take responsibility for all the problems related to sexuality and mostly lie about them, while also minimizing all the violence, harassment, promiscuity, and STDs related to the LGBT population.

Parque_Hundido

Researchers like Nicolosinhave been found to be incompetent, deceptive and are unable to publish their work in peer reviewed journals because they do not operate within the bounds of accepted science. Sorry Alessandra, your NARTH sourcees are just too easy to shoot down. Thanks for playing.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

Wrong – researchers like Nicolosi have been found to be competent, and valid, and have published their work in peer reviewed journals. Are you such a nitwit that you can’t even look up his publishing record before you write here? Sorry, your lying about Nicolosi and what kind of research he has done and published doesn’t change reality.

Thomas Alex

Researchers like Nicolosi are considered junk science, his methods and findings are clouded by is faith and homophobia. He’s not a credible Scientist, it’s funny you continue to bring him up. His practice in reparative therapy, is also found to be false. Since there’s no facts of evidence that he ever successfully altered someones sexual orientation. There’s on the other hand, many of his patient’s who have testified that they “lied about being changed, just to leave the program.” Because most of the children brought there were being force by their parents.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

Anything you say about Nicolosi has nothing to do with science. You don’t even know what science is. Not only is he credible, he’s treated hundreds of men and continues to be an active professional. It’s funny how much you try to lie about him simply because he so clearly shows you are wrong. You don’t know how many adult patients he has had. And of all the adults (in the hundreds), they went because they wanted to. I only heard of one complaint. and so what if there were a few? You’ve never heard of people quitting a therapist because they weren’t happy? It happens to EVERY therapist. Are you that ignorant about how therapists work?

You’re just lying that he didn’t identify a long list of underlying psychological problems for the men he was a therapist. You just hate what he discovered. No other therapist has ever been able to prove that his discoveries are wrong.
You are just plain ignorant about his work.

Thomas Alex

Then why hasn’t he testified in a court of Law? Because he know’s his findings are bias and unproven.

Thomas Alex

Researchers like Nicolosi, are not recognized in the Medical field as Factual, his studies are bogus and have never been proven. Heterosexuals also have underlying psycho-sexual problems that cause someone to develop a heterosexual problem.

Homosexuals are not “violence, harassment, promiscuity, and STDs,” that’s a lie started by the right wing bigots. Homosexuals have just as long relationships if not longer then Heterosexuals. The heterosexual divorce rate is 50%. while the Homosexual divorce rate is less than 3%. So who’s the promiscuous one here?

Thomas Alex

What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

People experience little or no sense of choice about any psychological problem they have – and that’s what homosexuality is: a psycho-sexual problem. it’s not because that you developed a psycho-social problem that you have no responsibility to resolve it and to have a wholesome, healthy heterosexual functioning.

Thomas Alex

You seem to have missed something, “heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation.” Heterosexual, that includes you. So if you call homosexuality a “psychological problem” then you’re also calling yourself a “psychological problem.” Since you’re part of the problem you speak of. Why should homosexuals change, when they can have a wholesome, healthy homosexual functioning?

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

There is no such thing as a healthy homosexual functioning – People with a homosexual problem are incapable of relating to the opposite sex, because of how many underlying problems they have – they need to resolve their problems, instead of attacking people who aren’t as ignorant as they are

Thomas Alex

It seems you’re the ignorant one here. Homosexuality is 100% healthy and normal Sexual Orientation, in which over 10% of the population is born. Why should homosexual relate to the opposite-sex? They’re not attracted to it! You’re the only ignorant one here.

Thomas Alex

What about therapy intended to change sexual orientation from gay to straight?

All major national mental health organizations have officially expressed concerns about therapies promoted to modify sexual orientation. To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective. Furthermore, it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. This appears to be especially likely for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals who grow up in more conservative religious settings.

Helpful responses of a therapist treating an individual who is troubled about her or his samesex attractions include helping that person actively cope with social prejudices against homosexuality, successfully resolve issues associated with and resulting from internal conflicts, and actively lead a happy and satisfying life. Mental health professional organizations call on their members to respect a person’s (client’s) right to selfdetermination; be sensitive to the client’s race, culture, ethnicity, age, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, socioeconomic status, language, and disability status when working with that client; and eliminate biases based on these factors.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

These organizations are politically motivated and do not base their actions on ethics. There is plenty of research that shows that therapy aimed to solve a person’s homosexuality problem is safe and can be effective.

Promoting the idea that no one needs to take responsibility for their psycho-sexual problems and everyone can be perverse and perverted, destructive and harmful, simply because they have deformed sexual psychologies is what fuels an STD epidemic, all kinds of abuse, harassment, interpersonal violence, dysfunctional relationships, etc. in society.
Men who have sex with men lead the way in spreading HIV and syphilis in society, by a huge proportion of cases, because they have such deformed minds and think there is nothing wrong with it. They cause billions of health care costs to society, depriving others of much needed resources, like abused children, for example.

Therapists who work ethically do not normalize homosexuality, and are not incapable of investigating the underlying problems that a person has that contributes to their homosexuality problem.

This is why when California recently tried to ban any kind of therapy related to homosexuality, it already lost its first legal round.
People with a homosexuality agenda want everyone to be ignorant and dysfunctional regarding sexuality and all its problems related to homosexuality, but it will only cause great harm in society.
An “anything goes” society is a violent pigsty, especially concerning sexuality.

Thomas Alex

Oh, how do I know your Organization’s aren’t politically motivated to spread hate and bigotry towards Homosexuals? Goes both ways. Except my organizations are considered text book, as yours, well. Who on earth would think it would be safe and can be effective to alter ones immutable characteristic??? You’re crazy.

“Men who have sex with men lead the way in spreading HIV and syphilis in society” Hate to break it to you, but men who have sex with women also spread HIV, by 40%!

“This is why when California recently tried to ban any kind of therapy related to homosexuality, it already lost its first legal round.” You’re ignorant and spreading lies. It hasn’t even saw the light in a court room yet, they issued and injunction from enforcement until a Court could hear the case.

“”To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective,” the American Psychological Association”

“Furthermore, it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons,” says the APA, the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States.”

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

“Men who have sex with men lead the way in spreading HIV and syphilis in
society” Hate to break it to you, but men who have sex with women also
spread HIV, by 40%

===================

Hate to break it to you but there are max 20% of MSM in society – leading by huge numbers the spread of serious and deadly STDs. MSM are one criminal group of people when it comes to spreading deadly sexual diseases. With impunity.

See, how destructive people with a homosexuality agenda are.

The APA is just doing politics. They hate that other therapists have knowledge that they don’t have. They are incompetent and ignorant about homosexuality and how to treat it. This is a political fight, nothing more.

I only see you contributing to make people ignorant about homosexuality.

Thomas Alex

You’re the one ignorant about homosexuality. Thankfully, your kind is dying off. The Supreme Court will soon legalize same-sex marriage nationwide, and you guys will go back into the wood work.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

Oh look some people want to spread HIV and syphilis with impunity – and they want everyone who is responsible and ethical to die off.
So surprising!

Thomas Alex

So you’re calling 40% of Heterosexuals irresponsible for spreading HIV, syphilis, herpes, gonorrhea, etc etc? That means 112 million Heterosexual American’s are irresponsible and 186 million are not, yet you’re afraid the 186 million American’s are going to die off? Where’s your logic on that one? If man has existed for over 3 million years, I can assure you we won’t be dying off because of the acceptance of Homosexuality as a normal Sexual Orientation.

Joey Bunch has been a reporter for 28 years, including the last 12 at The Denver Post. For various newspapers he has covered the environment, water issues, politics, civil rights, sports and the casino industry.